The contract has been awarded to the unnamed company on a 'no collection, no fee' basis, but the agency will keep a percentage of any debt it manages to collect.

But cash-strapped families say they are now living in fear of bailiffs knocking on their door.

The contract with the bailiffs comes as council staff write off £2.5 million of unpaid business rates, and £6 million of unpaid council tax. These debts have become classified as 'irrecoverable', due to the debtor dying, absconding, becoming bankrupt or other reasons.

Councillor Paul Shotton, cabinet member for commissioning, procurement and finance, said: "We have taken a targeted approach to tackling the issue of unpaid council tax and business rates as well as historic debt recovery.

"This funding is a vital part of the city's budget and we want to make sure that every penny goes towards providing vital frontline services."

The council expects collection rates will be affected by the introduction of the new council tax support system, which means some people will have to pay for the first time, as well as other welfare reforms including the bedroom tax.

Council staff have adopted a number of new strategies to tackle historical debt, including hand-delivering letters, telephoning debtors out-of-hours and specifically targeting the top 50 debtors. Gill Brown, chief executive of Hanley-based charity Brighter Futures, said: "If people can pay but won't, then it's right they should be made to pay. But the problem with debt collection agencies is the council needs to be certain the methods being adopted are right, and people know what their rights are.

"By handing the debt to a private company, the council loses control of the service provided."

Mum-of-two Jacqui Kettle's family will be affected by both the bedroom tax and the abolition of council tax benefit introduced on Monday. The 30-year-old, from Bentilee, said: "If we fall into debt, it's very scary to think that a bailiff could turn up at our doorstep, as we're really struggling."

42 comments

Summary
The authority obtained a liability order for non-payment of council tax despite full payment being made each month. Ross-end-ales bailiffs were instructed to collect an outstanding sum which was entirely paid off by the time they began pursuing it.
Hundreds of pounds were added by Ross-end-ales, this prompted research into what fees they could lawfully charge. As fraud was suspected the police were subsequently informed. The police's economic crime section concluded the attempted fraud was a civil matter to be taken up with the council. The authority lied its way through the formal complaints procedure, taking Ross-end-ales side, on the basis they are governed by some national code of practice.
The council's Chief Executive ultimately made the decision not to uphold allegations of fraud, making him complicit to the crime. To lie and deceive residents then could be viewed as a term of employment in obtaining his remuneration of around £200K a year.
The Local Government Ombudsman was then contacted with the naive assumption they'd investigate and put things right. They proved equally corrupt and after several months did nothing. On researching further, it's discovered that Ross-end-ales, like other private bailiff firms contracted to councils, are notorious for defrauding householders pursued by councils.
With this, and other information obtained through the council's complaints, there's confirmation that several fraud attempts were made by Ross-end-ales. New evidence was submitted to the police, and again this was fobbed off with several excuses for not allowing an investigation. Naively this was escalated to the IPCC, who proved as corrupt as the council, police and LGO.
Legislation provides under council tax regulations for complaints to be put before the court for challenging unlawful levies. The hearing was all set, but for a last minute discovery of a clause in the legislation which meant the complaint was time barred as a consequence of the months wasted with the police, council and LGO.
Corruption didn't stop at the LGO, police and council; it extended to the county court where a bent Judge found that the bailiff's fitness was not in question after being presented with evidence of the fraudulent way he'd imposed charges.
The next action should have nailed the bailiff, at least if the organisation responsible (ICO) for breaches of the Data Protection Act functioned as it should.
Letters left by the bailiff, categorised as "of a sensitive nature" (threatening to remove goods) were left available for any member of the public passing. The ICO was contacted, who, after spending several months, determined Ross-end-ales were not in breach of the Act.
A distinct pattern became evident – no public body is likely to uphold a complaint made about another public body. Another clue for why such cover-ups and corruption exists within these organisations is that Ross-end-ales is effectively an appendage to the Ministry of Justice.
The Magistrates' court played a major role in the fiasco which followed.
Records were requested, after discovering very dubious practices in liability order applications. Another breach of the Data Protection Act followed when the court carelessly sent personal details of other council taxpayers, including account numbers. Again the ICO was alerted and again no formal action was taken. A consequence of the breach resulted in another's details mistakenly submitted with bank payments for council tax instalments. Despite all payments being made on time they were paid into another person's account and consequently Ross-end-ales were instructed again. The corrupt organisations were all given another chance to redeem themselves but all failed miserably to prove they were truly independent and unbiased.

This should be sorted the same as child maintenance. It should be taken at source and if people are on benefits then it should be stopped out of the benefits before payment leaving a net amount I t is a bureaucratic mess when money is given by the government then paid back to government, a total waste of time. As for businesses then bailiffs are the only answer plus making directors/owners personally liable.

Bailiffs have no rights at all unless you let them in your house. Even if they turn up with the police they have no rights and the police, under oath have no right to help the bailiffs because they are under oath.
The council created this mess over ten years ago with the failure of people within the council to do their jobs right. But like all governmental departments failure is rewarded at a cost to the tax payers. These people were allowed to keep their jobs and in most cases promoted while the problems got bigger and bigger. This is why a government task force was sent in to put the councils books in order and what they found was far worse than they had been told. This in turn led to Stokes best known son 'Tristram Hunt' coming home to regal us with his knowledge of the 'Potteries' and why we ended up with the very democratic decision of allowing us to vote in local elections every four years instead of yearly.

Goach,
The scales of justice are a bit unbalanced. Local authorities are charged £3 in court fees for each Liability Order applied for. If you want to challenge the decision the Magistrate court fees are £500 for the individual to apply for the application to the High Court. In the example I linked to the Magistrates are refusing to proceed unless a further recognizance of £500 is entered into (to state the case). Then there's the £thousands you might have to pay in costs if you lose the appeal.
And people wonder why liability orders are never overturned. It's a stitch-up.

do you drive on our roads,
do you obey the traffic signals and crossing points,
do you have your bins emptied,
do your brats go to our schools,
do you walk on our footways and at night expect road lights to be on,
do you expect the areas to be kept clean and the grass cut ??
If yes to any of the above - Then pay your council tax or go live elsewhere !!!!!!!!!!!

by Goach
"....under the Human Rights Act you are entitled to a fair hearing, so if you don't think you owe the debt and the council can't prove it you have a right for it to be heard by a County Court Judge (not a magistrate)...."
I agree you have a right a fair hearing. I understood that this would be at the Magistrates' court though, and the only right of appeal against a liability order was in the High Court.
This is one such example:
http://tinyurl.com/accboq8

I agree with Anon-mow-cop.
I add this ryder:
I notice in the article above there is reference to a "bedroom tax".
There is no such thing as a "bedroom tax", it is a spare room subsidy. This is a scare tactic put about by the inept Labour party to frighten some of the electorate into voting for them.
If you tell a lie often enough, and loud enough, some people will begin to believe it as the truth. Which it isn't.
But people shouldn't be surprised, the Labour party have history when it comes to passing off lies as the truth, the latest culprit, Ed Balls.